juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[lunamoth]

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

I think it's an inescapable conclusion, Juan, that all in society, theists and non-theists alike, must admit that the basis of our morality comes from the Wisdom of the ages and sages reflected in scripture such as the Bible and from the implementation of this Wisdom through religions. Secularism is a rather recent invention (well, if you can consider a few hundred years recent). Now, whether one believes that the sacred writings and religions are the result of Divine Revelation or some kind of natural social behavior is a matter of faith (either way).

cheers,
lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

I think it's an inescapable conclusion, Juan, that all in society, theists and non-theists alike, must admit that the basis of our morality comes from the Wisdom of the ages and sages reflected in scripture such as the Bible and from the implementation of this Wisdom through religions.

I obviously am in agreement. I do not think our atheist friends in this thread so far are very willing to admit this.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jeff!

Juan, You must excuse me for i might be misunderstaning your point, do you mean to say that most religons do not veiw rape, murder and other things of that sort as immoral acts.

No sir, I do not say anything of the sort. I have said what I meant to say, and meant what I said.

If one were so inclined to read between the lines of what I wrote, they would see that I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth.

They would also see that I must be a rare bird indeed to an atheist, because I am not "illogical."

They would also see that I have not, in any post I recall ever writing here, that I am *not* saying "God" said "let there be morality." If there is one point atheists could take to the bank is that I am saying "God" is a "description" by humanity. However, I will clarify this statement here by saying that if there were nothing to describe, then why have all cultures and societies from ancient times made the attempt to describe "God?"

Put another way, I have consistently argued not from the top down with the assumption God exists, but rather I have always argued from the bottom up. Explain to me please why "God," in the manner I have already laid out and explained, is such a consistent matter of fact throughout all societies and cultures across time if there is nothing there?

And finally, one would see by reading between the lines, that arguing "what if's" is a waste of time if there is no practical application to reality. Why discuss "what if" God said murder, etc, were moral if murder pretty obviously is not? It would be as practical a discussion as "why can't an invisible pink unicorn be blue once in a while?" "Why can't the sky be purple?" Who cares?

Whether one views atheism as a religion, as I do, or a philosophy, the end result is the same. What logical purpose is served by a "fantasy philosophy" of what if's when there is no practical application to the real world.

I have answered your questions, how about addressing mine now?

Or is this a witch hunt? You know, prove the theist is illogical...after all, we can't have a rational theist running around, they are as unbelievable as invisible pink unicorns!

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

The point I tried to emphasize later in the post is that without acknowledgement of "God," meaning something above and beyond us and out of our control and to which we are helpless, we could not develop the farsightedness to perceive just what it is that we now call "good and bad." We could not see into tomorrow, to realize the consequences of our actions.

Does that help clarify?

I'm sure I'll be sorry for sticking my neck out here, but I have to say that as an Atheist i can deifinatly see the consequences of my actions without any consequence from a "god". If i do something Illegal, I go to court. If I stand in the street during rush hour, I'll probably be hit by a car. If I play the lottery and win, i become financially richer. The consequence for my replying in this thread is that I will have to continue to disagree with you. Everything has some sort of consequence, whether good or bad. What consequences then are you speaking of?
Thanks for your reply!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Freedom of Opinion, and welcome to CR!

as an Atheist i can deifinatly see the consequences of my actions without any consequence from a "god". If i do something Illegal, I go to court. If I stand in the street during rush hour, I'll probably be hit by a car. If I play the lottery and win, i become financially richer. The consequence for my replying in this thread is that I will have to continue to disagree with you. Everything has some sort of consequence, whether good or bad. What consequences then are you speaking of?

Thank you for your response.

I am seeing that I am not understood correctly. Again, in my arguments I have yet to overtly state God exists. I do believe, but my evidence is subjective and personal, and not suitable for debate. So I have tried to remain within the facts, and what evidence there is, is circumstantial. Frankly, the "evidence" against is also circumstantial. People have held this argument for centuries, so I have no illusions of solving the riddle here.

My point in this discussion has always been, that without a "God" concept, we would not be able to think or "see" into the future, in the sense of understanding the consequences of our actions. I am not speaking of God "punishing" wrongdoers. I am speaking of crossing a boundary of time in our minds that no other animals can do, at least in the future sense. Read the transcripts from conversations with Koko the gorilla, and you will see that she has no sense of future time as we do. She thinks and realizes in the present tense, and somewhat in the past tense, but she has no realization of consequences beyond personal experience. Humans can learn from other human's experience through a variety of methods, and we are able to project our understanding forward to realize consequences even in actions we have not experienced before. Granted, not all people do this all of the time, people still make mistakes, people still have errors in judgement. But people are capable of "seeing" well beyond what any other animals can do. That is what I mean by "consequences of our actions."

 

[bruceg]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!


I obviously am in agreement. I do not think our atheist friends in this thread so far are very willing to admit this.

So without religion there's no morality? You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong? How sad. How depressing a view of humanity.

... Bruce (not an atheist...)

 

[lunamoth]

So without religion there's no morality? You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong? How sad. How depressing a view of humanity.

... Bruce (not an atheist...)

Hi Burce,

No, that is not what I meant nor what I beleive. I think most people are moral whether or not they beleive in God or adhere to a religion. Actually, I think that morality has a lot more to do with mental health than with one's religous or philosophical worldview, for the most part.

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bruce and Lunamoth!

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

Indeed.

 

[juantoo3]

You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong?

Nah. For that, all you need is a conscience. And foresight. And realization of consequences. Which stem, in my argument, from a concept of something greater than ourselves. Which, by my definition, describes a personal religion.

Somewhere along the way came institutional religion and formalized morality. And society and culture. And politics. And civilization.

 

[Bellator]

I think morals can be reached out of logic. one knows not to make another being suffer because there is no reason for the other being's happiness to be any more important than their own. We need to get beyond our impulses that value our selves over anyone else, and try to end the suffering of all beings. That is the logical thing to do. I don't think any god is required to make the rules.

 

[lunamoth]

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things. I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

But, we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context. Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Starship! Have we met before? Welcome to CR!

Thank you for a post that has me thinking.

I think morals can be reached out of logic. one knows not to make another being suffer because there is no reason for the other being's happiness to be any more important than their own. We need to get beyond our impulses that value our selves over anyone else, and try to end the suffering of all beings. That is the logical thing to do. I don't think any god is required to make the rules.

My first impulse is to think your synopsis sounds very Buddhist. Which, if one were to analyze my argument, they would see that I am making a sincere attempt at inclusiveness. There might be some disagreement with my choice of terminology, "God concept," but the concept itself is very inclusive of the Buddhist moral path and application through society.

On further reflection, I could also add that logic combined with human nature does not necessarily lead to what we collectively term as morality. On one hand, I could say that logic as a discipline began with the Greeks, as I recall sometime around 500 BC, well into the development of social/cutural/political/religous structures for civil humanity. On the other hand, presuming that an elemental logic existed but not named as such in earlier times, that thought process could as easily be turned by human nature towards actions we now deem immoral. How best to sucker your opponent, so to speak, without getting caught. How to keep and hold power, or wealth. A lot depends on the motivation and direction that logic is applied. In short, application of logic to morality is not of itself sufficient without proper motivation and direction. That proper motivation and direction, in my argument, is through the use of a "God concept."

Does that help?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thanks!

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things.

Yes, I agree.

I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

I was wondering when and how love would enter the discussion...

we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context.

I agree.

Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

I missed this, but from the sound of it, I think I would have to agree.

 

[lunamoth]

Dear Juan,

You use the term "God concept" as if God really were a creation of humans with the primary goal of keeping us in line. From other posts you've made I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding, but I'll let you explain if you wish.

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Juan,
Thx for your reply. A question has arisen from your writings and I wondered, do you assume that man is naturally evil? I think that this opinion of man is what leads to the different opinions were seeing as to whether or not morality comes from a god concept.(that is the question here, right?) For example, I see man as over-all good, with or without the guidance of any religion. Therefore, I do agree with starship that morality can be reached from logic, not god.
I'm not sure that sticks to the thread, I was just curious.

 

[InLove]

Hi, and Peace--

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

Well said. I agree.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

You use the term "God concept" as if God really were a creation of humans with the primary goal of keeping us in line. From other posts you've made I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding, but I'll let you explain if you wish.

Yes, thank you. Remember, this discussion was raised by atheists, so the argument is pointed to those who deny the existence of God, in whatever way God is traditionally considered (inclusive of the Buddhist view).

With that in mind, I will reference a previous posting I made:

I am *not* saying "God" said "let there be morality." If there is one point atheists could take to the bank is that I am saying "God" (*as a concept) is a "description" by humanity. However, I will clarify this statement here by saying that if there were nothing to describe, then why have all cultures and societies from ancient times made the attempt to describe "God?"

Put another way, I have consistently argued not from the top down with the assumption God exists, but rather I have always argued from the bottom up. Explain to me please why "God," in the manner I have already laid out and explained, is such a consistent matter of fact throughout all societies and cultures across time if there is nothing there?

I hope that helps clarify.

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

I do agree with you, philosophically and materially. Being able to argue these things in a logical debate is where things get a little dicey. If we appeal to authority the other does not recognize, the argument becomes fallacious in their eyes. I have earlier stated I do believe in God, however I can no more prove God than anyone else can disprove God. All we have is circumstantial evidence. I am convinced, and my argument is an attempt to demonstrate, that the weight of circumstantial evidence is in my favor, and points to something out there, something we (most of us anyhow) call God, or at least some form of "God concept."

I am convinced there is something out there greater than our collective selves. My argument is an attempt to show this is so, to those who do not agree.

I did not start this thread. My chance comments were pulled out for discussion. I am defending my position. So far, I think, successfully. Praise God!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Freedom!

Thank you for your post!

Thx for your reply. A question has arisen from your writings and I wondered, do you assume that man is naturally evil? I think that this opinion of man is what leads to the different opinions were seeing as to whether or not morality comes from a god concept.(that is the question here, right?) For example, I see man as over-all good, with or without the guidance of any religion. Therefore, I do agree with starship that morality can be reached from logic, not god.

Quite honestly, the consideration of humanity being inherently good or bad had not entered my thoughts in terms of this discussion.

I suppose, in a natural sense, that humanity is neither good nor bad, it just is, at least from our point of view.

Now, if one considers that God created all, and all is good, then by extension humanity would be inherently good. Of course, this would negate the necessity for morality in the first place, from the point of view of this discussion. Unless there are mitigating factors we are overlooking, such as perhaps introduction of bad.

I do not think humanity is created bad. I think it can turn bad, or use itself towards bad purposes. A lot depends on outside mitigating factors I for one have no idea what may be, physically, mentally or spiritually. That is, no idea I care to use for debate.

 

[Bellator]

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things. I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

But, we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context. Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

lunamoth

I don't know where you get the vaccum part. I mean that it can be reached when we see the suffering of others and we know what that is like based on our experience. We see a problem and the solution is morals. I also don't doubt that we must learn these things, but they all have their roots in logic.

I think logic is the ideal way that morals come about. They more often come out of emotion and desire not to get caught.

 

[Jaiket]

Thanks for your respons Juan. I apologise for taking so long to respond.

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

Friends, family, and education (some of this was religious) contributed. The main part is without doubt, for me, evolution. If you like I can expand upon his. Although I'm sure you will have heard much, if not all, of what I have to say on the matter.

Is what you are describing "situational ethics?"

I've no idea.

What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another?

What do you mean 'what happens'?

Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome?

I've often wondered this myself. Currently I am undecided.

And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide? Mill's Utilitarianism is not perfect, particularly when there is not a standard outcome for all to strive for.

I'm afraid you've lost me.

I merely suggested that atheists conform because of social pressure to do so. In the absence of that social pressure, I cannot help but wonder just how moral an atheist can truly be?

I'm afraid I read that question as, how moral an atheist will be in the absence of morals?

Law, in and of itself, is not the sum total of morality, nor is morality the sum total of law. Having said this, it is plainly evident by anthropological evidence, such as the Code of Hammurabi, that the earliest codified law was based on religious morality teachings.

The earliest codified law? What does codified entail entirely here?

The further we go back beyond this, we enter a "chicken and egg" dilemma, which came first: religion or morality?

Did we learn to treat each other decently before we became religious? I cannot answer this.

I should qualify what I mean by religion here, in that I mean "awareness of 'God'." Here, "God" means "something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of."

I don't like your definition. You've limited religion to awarness of god and then defined god so vaguely as to make it a useless term. Secondly you've limited it to humans without any a priori reason to do so. I hope we can clear this up.

without "God" our morality would be no better than animals, in effect, a return to the cave. Animals do not perceive that "murder" applies even to adversaries, not just the pack. (I choose murder here as example, I hope it doesn't return to bite me in the butt...)

I don't see better or worse in animals, so let's not debate that issue. Regarding murder, it is strange that you used a word that only applies to human law i.e. animals cannot commit murder. Maybe I'm toying with words.

Now, humans are not immune from this, but on a percentage basis it is done with far less frequency.

Genocide is taken to a fine art by humans.

as we as civilized humans understand the concept, is religious in essence. And that without some kind of "God" concept, we would not be able to see far enough to comprehend "good" and "evil." Our actions would be those of the moment, with no regard for consequences. That includes suffering animals and ecological disasters.

I find it hard to agree or disagree since what you define as religion is rather alien to me. It cannot have escaped you that some kind of 'god' concept (or something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of) is something humans must possess and follow living within a society, an environment, and a universe. We are all susceptible to the laws of physics for instance and the laws of the lands. By this definition do you not believe we are all theists and therefore no such thing as an atheist exists, making our whole conversation relatively useless.

It might not surprise you that I do not agree with your definition of 'religious' or 'god'.